Google sold their own branded phone, made by HTC, to the public as part of the effort to promote Android.
I hate to tell you, but Apple doesn't actually machine the parts and assemble their phones either. Google made a phone in all the important ways - they controlled what it was and what it did - they made it open.
The Nexus One, unlocked, is still available for sale to registered Android developers as the Nexus One Developer Phone.
As a registered iPhone developer you can install anything you want on your iPhone, so it's just the same as Android that way, right? Just because a development device is available to developers doesn't mean there's open hardware that will run the open OS in any meaningful sense.
Yes, Android is an open, and open source operating system, that currently doesn't have any hardware, except for a development platform, to run on. So no, all the factors necessary for openness are not in place. There's a big one missing.
Sure we can. There are lots of realistic proposals for sending people on return trips to Mars. All that's needed is the money and the will to do it. This very story is about how much it will cost, not whether it's possible. Sending people on a return trip to Mars doesn't require any more technology than sending them one way. Just more stuff.
I had to look up Roanoke. I don't think people outside the US "still talk about" them much. Even so, they didn't go expecting to poke around a bit and then die (if they did die). It wasn't a suicide mission. It was a colonization mission, following several successful visit and return missions. Catch my drift?
Note that we're not talking about sending some people to Mars to start a permanent colony. That would be WAY more difficult than a one way trip. We're talking about a go, poke around and die mission. Just to be first.
When I was in high school I was bored one day in the library so I was flipping through the encyclopedia. Under nitroglycerine, there were reasonably detailed instructions for making it.
I don't think you'd want the title of first country to send someone one way. Your entry in the history book might be a little bit different than, say, Armstrong's. The achievement is sending someone and getting them back - which we can already do anyway. You wouldn't want to be known as the country that purposely sacrificed a crew of heros for a few billion dollars, would you?
Why would you? Oxy-helium is used in high pressure environments where nitrogen becomes a narcotic. In a space ship the last thing you want is high pressure.
Helium is kind of a pain too. It tends to leak through seals a lot faster than other gasses.
Yes - it's strange nobody seems to be able to write a decent office suite. Probably because they're all trying to copy Microsoft.
Take the simplest thing, say, inserting a figure into a word processing document. Word literally has no good way of doing this. I knew a guy who always put the figure and caption into cells in a one column, two row table. That approach has various problems. I usually use a text box, which SEEMS to be the correct solution, but those things seem to jump around like bunnies on speed. Put two of them on one page, move one, and the other seems to decide things are getting too crowded and goes to find another page to call home. And a few figures slows everything to a crawl.
Pages on my iPad handles figures better than Word does.
You're talking about feature points now. Your original post took a shot at Apple's "just works" and suggested it was inaccurate because the iPhone doesn't run Office (there are actually several third party Office-compatible apps that work quite well.
That is very clearly not what Apple means by "just works."
Then they're severely misusing the term. By that definition Windows is open too.
You're right, most people don't care whether Android is open source. A lot of people are going to care about whether they can upgrade the OS on their phone though. And in that way, Android looks a lot less "open" than the iPhone.
Then you didn't do your degree in something relevant. Probably no degree is relevant. It sounds like your employer should have hired a high school graduate they sent to a how to use ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE} training program.
Now, if you were developing ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE}, a degree in statistical learning might be useful.
Note that I'm not saying you have to do a degree in something relevant. Learning is good for you. It should be enjoyable. But if you go to school and for something, get a job afterward and then complain what you learned in school isn't helping you, you have either yourself or your employer (for having silly requirements) to blame.
Really? The Palm Pre will do my work for me? You twist definitions around to suit yourself even more than Jobs does!
When someone says "the device works" there is a single common interpretation - the device does whatever it's supposed to. Equating "the device works" with "helps you do work" is sillier than my equating it with the literal "the device does work."
Android only has one problem - Google doesn't make a phone.
If Google actually made and sold a reasonably competitive phone then they could point to it and say "hey, here's the hardware that runs the software. You can do whatever you want with it." That's open.
What they really have is some software that is technically open, but there's no hardware to run it on. Which makes Android phones about as open as a router that runs Linux and distributes the code but doesn't give you any way to install your changes.
The point is, if you want to actually make use of the "openness" of Android, you need a device to install it on. The only devices that are available don't let you install the OS on them. So while Android the software may be technically open, it doesn't matter because there's no hardware to actually run it on.
Sure you can root your phone (maybe) and install Android on it. You can jailbreak and iPhone and install Android on it too. So that makes the iPhone open, right?
To actually USE Android you need a device to install it on. Those devices generally don't let you install Android on them. So Android being "open" is kind of irrelevant.
Every time I hear Gene Simmons I think Richard Simmons for some reason. It made the idea of that reality show he did much more surreal. The image of Richard Simmons making threats against music pirates and reacting to a DDOS is pretty funny though.
A lot of the largest and most successful musicians also own record labels. You'll notice one of Simmon's websites that was taken down was SimmonsRecords.com.
No, I'm not. Why don't you go back and read my post? Better read the whole thread while you're at it.
Okay, done? The original comment was that Health Canada should have said wifi isn't dangerous because it's non-ionizing not because it's low intensity.
My comment was that IF you had a high intensity source, 100W, 500W, 2 kW, whatever, you might be able to get something like the reported symptoms. If on the other hand you had an ionizing source strong enough to cause those symptoms, they wouldn't disappear on weekends and after a few days trouble concentrating would be the least of your worries.
Yes, both situations are ridiculous. One is slightly less ridiculous than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
"We cannot already "send someone and get them back" from Mars, unless you're a member of an extraterrestrial race, and in that case, greetings."
I see. So you believe only aliens have the money and will to send people to Mars. I think it's pretty clear I was talking about technical ability.
You're really not making any sense. Perhaps you realize you spoke to hastily and now you're using the Chewbacca defense?
I hate to tell you, but Apple doesn't actually machine the parts and assemble their phones either. Google made a phone in all the important ways - they controlled what it was and what it did - they made it open.
As a registered iPhone developer you can install anything you want on your iPhone, so it's just the same as Android that way, right? Just because a development device is available to developers doesn't mean there's open hardware that will run the open OS in any meaningful sense.
Yes, Android is an open, and open source operating system, that currently doesn't have any hardware, except for a development platform, to run on. So no, all the factors necessary for openness are not in place. There's a big one missing.
Sure we can. There are lots of realistic proposals for sending people on return trips to Mars. All that's needed is the money and the will to do it. This very story is about how much it will cost, not whether it's possible. Sending people on a return trip to Mars doesn't require any more technology than sending them one way. Just more stuff.
I had to look up Roanoke. I don't think people outside the US "still talk about" them much. Even so, they didn't go expecting to poke around a bit and then die (if they did die). It wasn't a suicide mission. It was a colonization mission, following several successful visit and return missions. Catch my drift?
Note that we're not talking about sending some people to Mars to start a permanent colony. That would be WAY more difficult than a one way trip. We're talking about a go, poke around and die mission. Just to be first.
When I was in high school I was bored one day in the library so I was flipping through the encyclopedia. Under nitroglycerine, there were reasonably detailed instructions for making it.
One of the steps: stir carefully.
Because accelerators are horribly inefficient?
I don't think you'd want the title of first country to send someone one way. Your entry in the history book might be a little bit different than, say, Armstrong's. The achievement is sending someone and getting them back - which we can already do anyway. You wouldn't want to be known as the country that purposely sacrificed a crew of heros for a few billion dollars, would you?
Why would you? Oxy-helium is used in high pressure environments where nitrogen becomes a narcotic. In a space ship the last thing you want is high pressure.
Helium is kind of a pain too. It tends to leak through seals a lot faster than other gasses.
Helium, neon, argon,krypton, xenon and radon are noble gasses. Nitrogen is an inert gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas
Nitric acid is not nitrogen gas. Neither are organic nitrates. I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.
Yeah, Google tried making a phone and it didn't work out so they went back to supplying software. Bully for Google.
An open operating system isn't open at all if there's nothing to run it on. So the "openness" of Android is just a marketing slogan.
Yes - it's strange nobody seems to be able to write a decent office suite. Probably because they're all trying to copy Microsoft.
Take the simplest thing, say, inserting a figure into a word processing document. Word literally has no good way of doing this. I knew a guy who always put the figure and caption into cells in a one column, two row table. That approach has various problems. I usually use a text box, which SEEMS to be the correct solution, but those things seem to jump around like bunnies on speed. Put two of them on one page, move one, and the other seems to decide things are getting too crowded and goes to find another page to call home. And a few figures slows everything to a crawl.
Pages on my iPad handles figures better than Word does.
You're talking about feature points now. Your original post took a shot at Apple's "just works" and suggested it was inaccurate because the iPhone doesn't run Office (there are actually several third party Office-compatible apps that work quite well.
That is very clearly not what Apple means by "just works."
I agree with your latest points though.
Then they're severely misusing the term. By that definition Windows is open too.
You're right, most people don't care whether Android is open source. A lot of people are going to care about whether they can upgrade the OS on their phone though. And in that way, Android looks a lot less "open" than the iPhone.
Then you didn't do your degree in something relevant. Probably no degree is relevant. It sounds like your employer should have hired a high school graduate they sent to a how to use ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE} training program.
Now, if you were developing ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE}, a degree in statistical learning might be useful.
Note that I'm not saying you have to do a degree in something relevant. Learning is good for you. It should be enjoyable. But if you go to school and for something, get a job afterward and then complain what you learned in school isn't helping you, you have either yourself or your employer (for having silly requirements) to blame.
Try using a first gen Android phone with the latest build of Android in a couple of years and see how pleasant that is.
iOS is less fragmented than Android (there are five configurations, six if you count the Apple TV) and it's been around quite a bit longer.
Really? The Palm Pre will do my work for me? You twist definitions around to suit yourself even more than Jobs does!
When someone says "the device works" there is a single common interpretation - the device does whatever it's supposed to. Equating "the device works" with "helps you do work" is sillier than my equating it with the literal "the device does work."
Android only has one problem - Google doesn't make a phone.
If Google actually made and sold a reasonably competitive phone then they could point to it and say "hey, here's the hardware that runs the software. You can do whatever you want with it." That's open.
What they really have is some software that is technically open, but there's no hardware to run it on. Which makes Android phones about as open as a router that runs Linux and distributes the code but doesn't give you any way to install your changes.
If "we believe our product is better because..." is lashing out, the Internet really isn't the place it used to be.
The point is, if you want to actually make use of the "openness" of Android, you need a device to install it on. The only devices that are available don't let you install the OS on them. So while Android the software may be technically open, it doesn't matter because there's no hardware to actually run it on.
Sure you can root your phone (maybe) and install Android on it. You can jailbreak and iPhone and install Android on it too. So that makes the iPhone open, right?
It cuts down on the piracy a whole lot though. A lot of iPhone developers rather like that.
We're talking about Android being open though. Whose app store you use isn't really relevant, despite what Jobs said.
Exactly.
To actually USE Android you need a device to install it on. Those devices generally don't let you install Android on them. So Android being "open" is kind of irrelevant.
Drugs are a strong selective pressure for musicians. The ones who don't die of overdoses seem to be practically immortal. KISS, Aerosmith, etc.
Every time I hear Gene Simmons I think Richard Simmons for some reason. It made the idea of that reality show he did much more surreal. The image of Richard Simmons making threats against music pirates and reacting to a DDOS is pretty funny though.
A lot of the largest and most successful musicians also own record labels. You'll notice one of Simmon's websites that was taken down was SimmonsRecords.com.
He's hopefully learned something far more valuable than the cost of a laptop.
No, I'm not. Why don't you go back and read my post? Better read the whole thread while you're at it.
Okay, done? The original comment was that Health Canada should have said wifi isn't dangerous because it's non-ionizing not because it's low intensity.
My comment was that IF you had a high intensity source, 100W, 500W, 2 kW, whatever, you might be able to get something like the reported symptoms. If on the other hand you had an ionizing source strong enough to cause those symptoms, they wouldn't disappear on weekends and after a few days trouble concentrating would be the least of your worries.
Yes, both situations are ridiculous. One is slightly less ridiculous than the other.